David Aaronovitch Review of Helen Joyce's Book

Wow that DM article is so comprehensive!

Maya Forstater interviewing Helen Joyce about the book:

It’s massive piece

That is a great piece. Really really

Like the journalist kept popping back up with "oh and another thing! You won't believe this one".

Perfect description the journalist was determined to cover the whole spectrum of what we were told would never happen but did and does, a full serving of suitable what the fuck moments for the readership.

How long is that Daily Mail article?

Like the journalist kept popping back up with "oh and another thing! You won't believe this one".

[quote Ereshkigalangcleg]Thanks for the heads up, just found it:

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9802625/Toddlers-transitioning-male-rapists-womens-prisons-new-book-offers-look-trans-activism.html[/quote]
It's archived so that it's useful for this or an independent thread about it (I know some people won't follow a DM link):

archive.is/Mr2xQ

@Ereshkigalangcleg Thanks for the link, I wonder if that show be a new thread so more people see it?

Thanks for the heads up, just found it:

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9802625/Toddlers-transitioning-male-rapists-womens-prisons-new-book-offers-look-trans-activism.html

There's a big article on the book in the Daily Mail online today, it's very comprehensive and introduces the readers to Karen White, Jessica Yaniv, Riley Dennis and more. Some blinding sunlight for their readers.

Well, who knew bare facts and information would be seen as aggressive?

Yes, that's common, luvva. If women aren't simpering and falling over themselves to be naice they are often seen as 'angry'. This is what 'resting bitch face' is all about.

It's almost as if any woman who clearly and firmly says what she thinks is read by men as being very very angry. Either Glinner and Aaronovitch are projecting their own anger onto Joyce's words or they must belong to the category of men who reads an assertive, opinionated, informed woman as being angry.

Glad to hear it’s not just me who doesn’t see anger in her tone. I’m baffled by that characterisation.

And I think your other point is very well put - she’s writing to counter an ideology and institutional capture therefore she’s factual - the book is just fact after fact after fact.

I just can't see anger either - conviction, yes. Assertion, yes. I mean, Suzanne Moore, Owen Jones, Polly Toynbee - they all write sometimes in ways I'd recognise as angry. Even allowing for male reactions to women's voices, this baffles me

I also think he's wrong that to she needs to be less angry because she should write for the transactivists she wants to convince. She is writing about institutional capture. She'll effect change with a clear message to the civil servants, the middle managers, the sleepwalkers, the fence-sitters. Dialogue with a Transactivist would just be a different book.

It felt a little like that "make one criticism for balance" reach you see sometimes in really positive reviews - didn't convince, anyway.

I’m nearly finished reading Helen’s book and I’m puzzled by Aaronovitch characterising Helen’s tone as ‘angry’. It very much is not angry; it’s forthright. It just doesn’t pull punches or mince words - what’s wrong with (even progressive) men that they dislike frank women?! Is it that women are only allowed to be right if we’re mimsy or endearing in pointing out problems?

And even if she were angry, so what?! She would have every right to be, given what’s been happening to women and children and to women’s rights and safeguarding.

But more generally, if you were genuinely concerned about anti-Semitism and noticed a pattern, would you start trumpeting it all over the internet, knowing the issue is divisive?

Thank you, this is well put. I’ve been thinking the same but found it hard to articulate. It’s not as if TRAs are suddenly taking anti-Semitism seriously after years of calling everyone they disagree with Hitler. It’s continuing their longstanding trivialisation of anti-Semitism, but it seems darker, like there is some projection buried in there too: “you’ve claimed that some rich people are exerting a less than benign social influence? Obviously, you hate Jews.” It’s not a good world for anyone and most especially not for Jewish people if criticising billionaires becomes equated with anti-Semitism.

@NellWilsonsWhiteHair

Yes! I read this point being made on twitter by a Jewish QC, who absolutely has no time for anyone's covert or unconscious antisemitism, but on this one basically said 'you're being ridiculous, he's not even Jewish'.

It feels like it may not be my place to judge - I've never been victim of anti-Semitism or anything like it. But doesn't this kind of tactic seem anti-Semitic in itself? First the assumption that someone with a non-Anglo name and a fortune can be handwaved as Jewish. But more generally, if you were genuinely concerned about anti-Semitism and noticed a pattern, would you start trumpeting it all over the internet, knowing the issue is divisive? It's not just deploying the slur of anti-Semitism, is it? It's othering Jewish people and shoving them forward as targets.

It's not an accusation people should teach for casually - not only because it may be unfair to the accused, but because there's too much real anti-Semitism out there, and it's not hard to trigger it.

Thanks @Belleager, that's really helpful.

The other thing I've noticed is that those v hostile to the book who are claiming it spreads an antisemitic conspiracy are saying the three names she mentions are all Jewish - but actually there's no evidence that one of them is if you Google them all. They want to be able to say 'what a coincidence that you mention those three' so are pretending (or are stupidly assuming) they are all Jewish so it fits the narrative.

Yes! I read this point being made on twitter by a Jewish QC, who absolutely has no time for anyone's covert or unconscious antisemitism, but on this one basically said 'you're being ridiculous, he's not even Jewish'.

"The third billionaire funder of transactivism is George Soros, via his Open Society Foundations (OSF), a network of independently managed philanthropic institutions. OSF has made multi-million-dollar donations to both the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, and in 2010 gave $100 million to the HRC, the largest donation the campaign group had ever received. OSF pays for the production of model laws and ‘best-practice’ documents on trans-related issues. To highlight just one example, in 2014 it supported ‘License to be Yourself’, a guide to campaigning for national gender self-ID laws. This argued, among other things, that children of any age should be able to change their legal sex at will".

That is interesting but confusing material from the EU. When you drill down, they seem to refute claims that the OSF offices in Armenia are introducing Western ideology as a deliberate ploy to destabilise their state. So not refuting Soros's support for trans rights or activism. Armenia seems to be a country where trans women are in danger of violence and Soros's concern with human rights offers some hope of protection for them there - good for him.

You can see where Soros has actually contributed to trans causes at 4thwavenow.com/2018/05/25/the-open-society-foundations-the-transgender-movement/

Just that one vast donation to HRC is inaccurate - other support and donations from Soros seem well attested.

Clearly, to place excessive emphasis on Soros would risk straying into conspiracy-theory territory. (I don't think HJ is in any way antisemitic.)

But there is nothing antisemitic about mentioning Soros' and OSF's views. The Open Society Foundations endorse gender ideology wholesale ( www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/essential-legal-right-trans-people ) and demand some form of self-ID "without any medical or outside intervention". Trans people have a "right" to "gender-affirming" care, according to OSF.

Interestingly, the EU funds an online fact-checking project to rebut Russian disinformation ( euvsdisinfo.eu/about/ ). They devote a page to the allegation that "Soros' office is involved in active transgender propaganda", which they find to be false ( euvsdisinfo.eu/report/soros-office-is-involved-in-active-transgender-propaganda ). The two paragraphs of "disproof" are wholly unconvincing and largely irrelevant, though. The summary of what the actual allegation is isn't particularly clear, either. It seems to involve propaganda to the effect that pernicious educational material is being given to children. I certainly haven't seen any evidence that OSF has been involved in that, though we know that a whole lot of dodgy educational material does exist and that many of those who swallow gender ideology uncritically seem to see little wrong with it. But let us hope that OSF is not among those.

Overall, it is probably a mistake to make too much of OSF's role, but as far as I know, HJ only mentioned Soros once in the whole book.

open society gave 100 million to human rights watch, not human rights campaign. Sorry I see now this isn't new info on this thread.

Trans activists on twitter have pointed to the fact open society gave 100 million to human rights watch, not human rights campaign. That could be the source of the mistake. As others have pointed out open society do fund trans activists causes, so the basic point holds even though she will have bee aiming at no mistakes obviously.

The other thing I've noticed is that those v hostile to the book who are claiming it spreads an antisemitic conspiracy are saying the three names she mentions are all Jewish - but actually there's no evidence that one of them is if you Google them all. They want to be able to say 'what a coincidence that you mention those three' so are pretending (or are stupidly assuming) they are all Jewish so it fits the narrative.